-
ARSJ Holding Ltd
We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.
-
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very, very.co.uk, Littlewoods, littlewoods.com
This ruling replaces one from November 2021; however, we have continued to uphold the complaint.
-
Tesco Mobile Ltd t/a Tesco Mobile
We banned ads for replacing expletives with food terms.
-
UAB Ekomlita t/a nuubu
We partly upheld complaints against ads for kitchen knives.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a Adidas
We upheld complaints against ads containing nudity.
-
Relx (UK) Ltd
An Instagram story on Louis Shaw’s account was not obviously identifiable as an ad and promoted unlicensed, nicotine-containing e-cigarettes on social media.
-
Wild Drinks Group Ltd t/a Whisp Drinks
We banned an ad on Rosie Breen’s TikTok page for making health claims about an alcoholic product, encouraging excessive drinking and featuring someone under 25 years of age.
-
Capri Sun GmbH
A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience, young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.
-
PPB Counterparty Services Ltd t/a Paddy Power
A TV and VOD ad by a bookmaker broke the rules by portraying gambling as taking priority in life over family and encouraging repetitive or frequent participation in gambling.
-
PPB Counterparty Services Ltd t/a Paddy Power
A radio ad for a bookmaker did not break the rules on harm and offence on the grounds of innuendo or portrayal of gender stereotypes
-
PPB Counterparty Services Ltd t/a Paddy Power
A radio ad for a bookmaker did not break rules on harm and offence with regards to references to emigration and sporting rivalries.
-
Take Stock Foods Ltd
A paid-for TikTok post for a soup company broke the rules by claiming that its food products could treat or cure acne.
-
Trailfinders Ltd
A holiday brochure was misleading because it did not make it sufficiently clear that special offers on free nights and free room upgrades were subject to restrictions.
-
Evergreens (UK) Ltd t/a ArtificialGrass.com
A website and two YouTube video ads for artificial grass were misleading as they overstated the environmental benefits and air purifying qualities of the products.
-
J Sainsbury plc t/a Sainsbury's
A radio and TV ad for Sainsbury which promoted the general benefits to the environment of reducing meat protein in substitution for plant protein were not misleading.
-
Partex Global GmbH
A website for auto parts omitted material information about the advertiser’s geographical location and misleadingly implied that the advertiser was based in the UK, when that was not the case.
-
Vegan Friendly UK
A TV ad for Vegan Friendly UK was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences and therefore was not suitable for broadcast on TV regardless of scheduling restrictions.
-
Verisure Services (UK) Ltd t/a Verisure
Claims on a website by a provider of security alarms that it offered the best alarm technology on the market were misleading and were not verifiable.
-
Hydrow Ltd
A TV ad for a rowing machine that depicted road crossing in an irresponsible manner should have been scheduled away from programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.
-
Barton Park Estates Ltd t/a Devon Oaks Park; Seascapes
An ad for luxury park homes was banned for being misleading.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following investigation, the advertising rules apply and where we draw the line in judging whether an ad has broken the rules. We also publish a list of companies and organisations which, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (84)